Ok, but why did auto manufactures, stop producing turbo cars in the late 1980's? Ford made a turbo Mustang and T-bird. Buick had the Grand National and Dodge Daytona(yikes). They were not big sellers. The technology worked, but it was cheaper to get a reliable V8.
Octane rating
- Thread starter The dude
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
There are so many factors and the real reality is we aren't the engineers at ford so what we are saying is speculation, all of it. The real results out in the field show it works now even if it didn't then and it is a seller nowadays as times have changed and people are more MPG conscience. There have been so many changes since the 80s it innumerable. Look we are getting an aluminum expedition next year who would have thought..
drewactual
Full Access Members
it was cheaper for them to build n/a engines, especially with the mistrust of turbo, which is evidenced right here in this thread some 30+ years later.
American manufacturing especially then was married to the tool/die/casts they owned at the time. they tacked boost onto existing platforms instead of building with boost in the planning from the beginning. however, it worked in most cases- though it never would cross into the black profit wise... they couldn't produce a boosted engine, which was intended for performance purposes every time back then, and make a decent margin. it's all about the money- and boost was a lost leader in costs.
there were some really mean aftermarket companies that outfitted those rigs, though. Callaway ran with a twin turbo+supercharged vette. Saleen produced several turbo and twin turbo cars. they made their money on those, but the profit was firmly in the black for them, and above what the OE could make... Face it- America wasn't making performance cars then outside of very specific lineups... and even those were mostly dogs.
as far as technology and metallurgical advancement- the sequential turbo's on my 6.4 are just plain badass. i've seen the exhaust gas temperatures running in excess of 1600* (nearing 1700*) for brief moments, and i've held over 1400* for several minutes straight. on average, i'd guess the EGT's temperatures sustain around 650* with momentary blasts up to 1k*. and those things work as good now as they did new, with 131K miles on the rig. i NEVER kill the engine (stopping oil flow through the turbo housings) when the EGT is above 300*- allowing cooler oil to circulate which saves bearings and seals. Coking (o2'less burn/same chemical reaction) happens when oil is beyond it's flash point (most oil's are in the 300~350* flash point range, high quality syn's are around 400) and it leaves behind a carbon film i've heard called 'cajun crust'... that stuff is impossible to remove from surfaces once it's formed... so, keep the oil flowing until things cool down- it only gets hotter after the keyoff. this little thing should happen with all boosted applications (diesel or not, turbo/s/c or not) : simply let the engine cool down before keyoff- especially if it's been ran hard.
as far as carbon build up, it is real and it's the fault of emissions controls. the CCV (on a diesel) or the PCV (on a gasser) spit bypass gasses which are laden with oil mist straight at the turbo vanes. bad juju. it DOES build up on them, and it CAN create an imbalance on the blades- and that imbalance can easily cause seal issues as the RPM's of the turbo increase, which breaks/wrecks seals and causes all kinds of issues. solution: reroute the vent (#1), and #2: use a high quality synthetic oil to protect the turbo bearings as well as disallowing coking on the blades from the misted bypass gasses.
ownership and proper maintenance of a boosted engine (especially turbo) requires more effort than a n/a engine. if that can't be done, then likely it's best you stick with n/a.
NevadaGeo
Full Access Members
There is a well-moderated, very informative forum on the ecoboost engine.
http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?action=forum
There is good content there and links to much good information. Seems like some on this thread live in a cave and have no intention of coming out to see if there is sunshine. There is plenty of information on the evolution of the 3.5 TT if you just search for it.
There is also very good information on this website;
https://www.full-race.com/articles/what-is-ecoboost/
...or you can keep this silly thread going into irrelevancy.... and continue to make fools of yourselves.....
jeff kushner
Full Access Members
I'm going to refrain from bashing anyone BUT Loki beat me to responding to this: "Ford, GM and Chrysler all tried turbo charging in the 80's. They all phased them out. Why? Now 25+ years, Ford, comes out with the Eco-boost..."
The reality of the times was that nearly ALL of the motorcycle and car companies dabbled with turbos in the early to mid-eighties....I OWN ONE today! EVERY single one of them suffered from "turbo-lag" which is the delta in time between the moment the throttle is applied, and the moment that boost is produced. The accepted school of thought at the time was that the closer the turbo is mounted to the exhaust valve, the less turbo-lag. The mighty Kawasaki 750 Turbo mounted the turbo in front of it's transverse 4 cylinder engine getting within 7" on the exh valves, was fuel injected(also a first for bikes) yet if failed in the public market as did every other turbo'ed car or bike. People didn't not want to pay a premium price for a vehicle that didn't immediately react when they twisted their wrist or pressed on the gad pedal. In the case of the Yamaha, the "standard" n/a ran for $2,980...while the turbo edition not only ran $4,190, it weighed nearly 55 lbs more, had lower off-turbo compression and was a pig in terms of power/weight....off boost. (6-7 years ago I bought my Yamaha 650 turbo and after being taken under a guru's wing, learned how to modify and reconfigure the boost control to produce 18PSI and it's a blast to ride. Off turbo, it's still the same pig that it was but my girlfriend doesn't like to go fast so she never twists the throttle wide open...and it never scares her because boost is only built if there is a large delta between throttle position and present throttle opening. )
Years later in the 90's, Mitsubishi built a twin turbo, the 3000GT that also suffered from a bit of turbo-lag and it wasn't cheap...but ask anyone who owned one and they will tell you that it was a rocket, once the boost built.
All the cars failed for the exact same reason....increased complexity & cost but turbo lag was the killer of sales.
Saying that, it's quite clear today what caused their downfall then and what has been learned about the implementation of turbos in vehicles since then and the solution that Ford chose to use in the 3.5TT.
When I first began shopping to replace my '03EB I saw the 3.5tt and looked into it's configuration and was slapped in the face with the design changes that Ford employed....it was very obvious! One glance at the exh manifold and anyone who works on engines of any type will recognize their solution ....and knowing just a little about fluid dynamics and bingo, they shrunk the exh passages to speed up the velocity, thereby causing the turbine to be spinning at even slow engine speeds....and wa la...in one minor design change and they eliminated the dreaded "turbo-lag"!
Not only did they eliminate it but they did so at a low enough cost so as not to be forced by the accounting guy to jack the price up!
Hot air does not absorb moisture or fuel as well as cold (if it did, we would inject hot air instead of cooling it first) but it does cause the moisture to condense when it's cooled. This is where the early 3.5's ran into some issues. In high humidity situations(like MD every summer) the moisture would condense in the intercooler then be flung onto the MAF and other sensors distorting the readings and causing the issues he described. Do you know what "the fix" was? It was to quite simply drill a single 1/4" hole on the bottom of the intercooler to allow the condensed moisture to drip on the ground....problem solved! It was such a small hole that in the big picture, it didn't even affect engine performance!
As Drew has so expertly stated, his engine is a beast....but it's also an EXPENSIVE beast that he paid a premium to own....more power to him! He obviously knows enough about his engine to know that you don't want to shut down a hot turbo system but is smart enough to allow the cooling oil to do it's job before he shuts the engine down.
Most of us have seen the Mercedes commercial where they show the engine running in a rig...and the entire exhaust and SC turning beet red.....yes, a turbo (or SC ) can get quite toasty but since they run in an oil bearing, they aren't beet red on the inside but if you run and turbo'ed engine hard you need to allow it to cool down before shutting it down or you risk the oil burning off and you having a dry-start the next time you start it...and that's not a good idea in any engine which is exactly why Drew lets his run a bit before shut-down.
Case in point....I own a slew of 2 stroke street bikes, some very fast. I remember racing these back in the 70's and at the strip, we would watch as a guy ran a race, winding it out till the end of the 1/4 mile then shut the throttle. Problem with that was he was shutting off the supply of oil lubrication along with the gas...and the engine would seize. I watched as the same thing happened in the vintage races at Ohio last summer.....the poor guy got to the end of the straightaway, chopped his throttle and seized his engine and was out of the race.
jeff
The reality of the times was that nearly ALL of the motorcycle and car companies dabbled with turbos in the early to mid-eighties....I OWN ONE today! EVERY single one of them suffered from "turbo-lag" which is the delta in time between the moment the throttle is applied, and the moment that boost is produced. The accepted school of thought at the time was that the closer the turbo is mounted to the exhaust valve, the less turbo-lag. The mighty Kawasaki 750 Turbo mounted the turbo in front of it's transverse 4 cylinder engine getting within 7" on the exh valves, was fuel injected(also a first for bikes) yet if failed in the public market as did every other turbo'ed car or bike. People didn't not want to pay a premium price for a vehicle that didn't immediately react when they twisted their wrist or pressed on the gad pedal. In the case of the Yamaha, the "standard" n/a ran for $2,980...while the turbo edition not only ran $4,190, it weighed nearly 55 lbs more, had lower off-turbo compression and was a pig in terms of power/weight....off boost. (6-7 years ago I bought my Yamaha 650 turbo and after being taken under a guru's wing, learned how to modify and reconfigure the boost control to produce 18PSI and it's a blast to ride. Off turbo, it's still the same pig that it was but my girlfriend doesn't like to go fast so she never twists the throttle wide open...and it never scares her because boost is only built if there is a large delta between throttle position and present throttle opening. )
Years later in the 90's, Mitsubishi built a twin turbo, the 3000GT that also suffered from a bit of turbo-lag and it wasn't cheap...but ask anyone who owned one and they will tell you that it was a rocket, once the boost built.
All the cars failed for the exact same reason....increased complexity & cost but turbo lag was the killer of sales.
Saying that, it's quite clear today what caused their downfall then and what has been learned about the implementation of turbos in vehicles since then and the solution that Ford chose to use in the 3.5TT.
When I first began shopping to replace my '03EB I saw the 3.5tt and looked into it's configuration and was slapped in the face with the design changes that Ford employed....it was very obvious! One glance at the exh manifold and anyone who works on engines of any type will recognize their solution ....and knowing just a little about fluid dynamics and bingo, they shrunk the exh passages to speed up the velocity, thereby causing the turbine to be spinning at even slow engine speeds....and wa la...in one minor design change and they eliminated the dreaded "turbo-lag"!
Not only did they eliminate it but they did so at a low enough cost so as not to be forced by the accounting guy to jack the price up!
Hot air does not absorb moisture or fuel as well as cold (if it did, we would inject hot air instead of cooling it first) but it does cause the moisture to condense when it's cooled. This is where the early 3.5's ran into some issues. In high humidity situations(like MD every summer) the moisture would condense in the intercooler then be flung onto the MAF and other sensors distorting the readings and causing the issues he described. Do you know what "the fix" was? It was to quite simply drill a single 1/4" hole on the bottom of the intercooler to allow the condensed moisture to drip on the ground....problem solved! It was such a small hole that in the big picture, it didn't even affect engine performance!
As Drew has so expertly stated, his engine is a beast....but it's also an EXPENSIVE beast that he paid a premium to own....more power to him! He obviously knows enough about his engine to know that you don't want to shut down a hot turbo system but is smart enough to allow the cooling oil to do it's job before he shuts the engine down.
Most of us have seen the Mercedes commercial where they show the engine running in a rig...and the entire exhaust and SC turning beet red.....yes, a turbo (or SC ) can get quite toasty but since they run in an oil bearing, they aren't beet red on the inside but if you run and turbo'ed engine hard you need to allow it to cool down before shutting it down or you risk the oil burning off and you having a dry-start the next time you start it...and that's not a good idea in any engine which is exactly why Drew lets his run a bit before shut-down.
Case in point....I own a slew of 2 stroke street bikes, some very fast. I remember racing these back in the 70's and at the strip, we would watch as a guy ran a race, winding it out till the end of the 1/4 mile then shut the throttle. Problem with that was he was shutting off the supply of oil lubrication along with the gas...and the engine would seize. I watched as the same thing happened in the vintage races at Ohio last summer.....the poor guy got to the end of the straightaway, chopped his throttle and seized his engine and was out of the race.
jeff
drewactual
Full Access Members
if i don't have my tune right, i can get quite a bit of turbo lag... if i have the pilot injection backed up with an advanced injection (almost on the same pulse they're so close) it isn't so bad- but- when i don't dive deep into the throttle on the same tune, i'll puff some coal, which is something i friggin' despise (it AIN'T cool, it's stupidity and not good for engines)..... the piazioelectric injectors that were introduced (on fords/navstar/international) with the 6.4 allow for up to 5 distinct injection events per injection cycle. that is wicked fast, no?
atop of the injection reacting fast enough to charge the ingested air, the sequential turbo's are a thing of beauty. the first one moves pressure, and does so at low rpm's, giving bump off the line. the second one provides volume and feeds plenty at WOT. the variable geometry allows one to not be in the way of the other by adjusting the blades near transparent, and while rpm's build they start to softly bite into the stream and ultimately taking over.
the torque curve on my rig is flat for over a thousand rpm's. i am producing 1k# by 1900rpm and it doesn't decline until a good bit over 3000rpms. this is because of the ability to monitor the system by a computer that offers split-second-almost-instantaneous response to environment, as well as control over the turbo's pitch. that simply couldn't have been done w/o computers. i know little about the EB, and to be honest i'm looking at sc'ing a 5.4 2v and will likely never own a EB. that doesn't mean i can't admire it's concept, though, which isn't an accident following the lead of others in the business (international/navstar) and to their own engineering staff (scorpion)... letting that trickle down from diesel to gas...
re: condensing air in air to air intercooler/charge air coolers- I've not done it as I don't see it as a real problem... i don't mind dealing with a bit of white smoke (confirmed moisture from i/c, NOT coolant) first thing in the morning... however, if I do get tired of it I'll do as some others have done- I'll install a sealed pipe in the bottom of that thing with a normally open 12vdc solenoid valve affixed to the end... key on? valve closes... key off? valve opens... set it and forget it.
atop of the injection reacting fast enough to charge the ingested air, the sequential turbo's are a thing of beauty. the first one moves pressure, and does so at low rpm's, giving bump off the line. the second one provides volume and feeds plenty at WOT. the variable geometry allows one to not be in the way of the other by adjusting the blades near transparent, and while rpm's build they start to softly bite into the stream and ultimately taking over.
the torque curve on my rig is flat for over a thousand rpm's. i am producing 1k# by 1900rpm and it doesn't decline until a good bit over 3000rpms. this is because of the ability to monitor the system by a computer that offers split-second-almost-instantaneous response to environment, as well as control over the turbo's pitch. that simply couldn't have been done w/o computers. i know little about the EB, and to be honest i'm looking at sc'ing a 5.4 2v and will likely never own a EB. that doesn't mean i can't admire it's concept, though, which isn't an accident following the lead of others in the business (international/navstar) and to their own engineering staff (scorpion)... letting that trickle down from diesel to gas...
re: condensing air in air to air intercooler/charge air coolers- I've not done it as I don't see it as a real problem... i don't mind dealing with a bit of white smoke (confirmed moisture from i/c, NOT coolant) first thing in the morning... however, if I do get tired of it I'll do as some others have done- I'll install a sealed pipe in the bottom of that thing with a normally open 12vdc solenoid valve affixed to the end... key on? valve closes... key off? valve opens... set it and forget it.
jeff kushner
Full Access Members
I'm kind of surprised Drew that they didn't use the VGT housings in your engine....but that sounds like it might have been redundant to what is in there already....yes, that is a beast of an engine!
FWIW
I know in the bike engine, the turbo variety uses a stronger head, lower initial compression, stronger rods, crank and better crank bearings.....attempting to SC a n/a engine will work as you well know but if you can make some gains in these areas, it will last longer!
jeff
FWIW
I know in the bike engine, the turbo variety uses a stronger head, lower initial compression, stronger rods, crank and better crank bearings.....attempting to SC a n/a engine will work as you well know but if you can make some gains in these areas, it will last longer!
jeff
drewactual
Full Access Members
it is VGT- i just didn't explain that part. it's a solid system. im putting that truck up for sell soon, and after i build the 5.4, which will be the first ford mod motor i've opened up... ive got a lot to learn before i even get there, though... such as the two blocks of the 5.4 2v era- one was 6 bolt main the other 8? which is stronger? forged rods going in, ect...
in what seems like an about face to this thread (which obviously drifted from octane discussion to far reaching things) there is no excuse for not having a solid foundation before boost... i think you'll find some people who slap turbo's on engines or a bottle of NOS or some such are covering issues inherently bad with their build... like putting trim over a bad cabinet job or something... even building with boost in mind from the start that engine ought to be strong... if it is, boost is really something badass.. if it isn't, it won't last long.
the 5.4 2v in the eXp now is tired. i've not leaked it down or compression checked it, but @ 201k it's just not a good candidate for expecting any life out of s/c'ing it.
in what seems like an about face to this thread (which obviously drifted from octane discussion to far reaching things) there is no excuse for not having a solid foundation before boost... i think you'll find some people who slap turbo's on engines or a bottle of NOS or some such are covering issues inherently bad with their build... like putting trim over a bad cabinet job or something... even building with boost in mind from the start that engine ought to be strong... if it is, boost is really something badass.. if it isn't, it won't last long.
the 5.4 2v in the eXp now is tired. i've not leaked it down or compression checked it, but @ 201k it's just not a good candidate for expecting any life out of s/c'ing it.
jeff kushner
Full Access Members
but @ 201k it's just not a good candidate for expecting any life out of s/c'ing it.
Oh HELL no! <LOL>
I would do the research as I'm sure you will as to which option presents the strongest base to start with. Obviously the 8 bolt would appear to be but the experts will know. For bikes, I've dropped a dime and called the modshops who build them everyday to keep me from having to spend hours reinventing the wheel by spending hours doing to research...they would instantly know which is better or might even give you a better option which wouldn't break the bank?
jeff
Oh HELL no! <LOL>
I would do the research as I'm sure you will as to which option presents the strongest base to start with. Obviously the 8 bolt would appear to be but the experts will know. For bikes, I've dropped a dime and called the modshops who build them everyday to keep me from having to spend hours reinventing the wheel by spending hours doing to research...they would instantly know which is better or might even give you a better option which wouldn't break the bank?
jeff
